"Ejection seat maker Martin Baker (MB) has complained that its American rival is trying to unfairly win government funding for development of a new seat. The British-owned company alleges that safety and maintainability modifications of the in-service ACES II seat, made by UTC Aerospace Systems, effectively create a new product. There is a proposal for the modifications to be funded by the Pentagon; Martin Baker maintains that the seat should be government-funded only after a competitive bid process.

The two companies enjoy a duopoly of provision to the U.S. military, but Martin Baker is better positioned for the future because its Mk16E seat was selected for the Lockheed Martin F-35....

...MB claims that the Mk16E is the only seat that meets the latest USAF needs, including the safety provisions for the ejection of a pilot wearing helmet-mounted displays. The death of a USAF pilot who ejected on an ACES II seat from an F-16 in 2013 while wearing the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) and night-vision goggles was attributed to head and neck trauma. Further, MB noted, its Mk16 seat is a modular design that can be removed from a cockpit in pieces. The ACES II is not modular, and removing the top of the B-2 cockpit when the crew ejection seats require maintenance is an expensive and time-consuming process, according to MB...."

popcorn wrote:Shouldn't UTC fund development of ACES 5 in-house? This has been a growing trend in the defense industry as government purse strings have tightened. Who dares, wins!

The USAF retains the 'rights' to the ACES ejection seat.I do not know exactly what that means in terms of legal boundaries.The USAF does have the right to extend service, maintenance and replacement part contracts to whomever they choose.I will SPECULATE that it also seems to imply that the current manufacturer has no right to sell the product to anyone other than the USAF without their express consent. That would probably be true for the seats current form and any modification or upgrade as well.

The neck injury cited by MB in the article above likely generated new requirements from the USAF regarding the design.

It could also be claimed that the Modification (if that is what it is) is required due to no fault in the current ACES seat design, but a change to the environment by the USAF by equipping it's pilots with heavier helmet add-ons:

It is probably hair splitting to determine if it is New Design or a Modification, but since MB likely has a significant legal retainer staff that wasn't as busy as they could be..... Why not send them to work throwing sand into the gearbox of that project?

Daddy why do we have to hide? Because we use VI son, and they use windows.

Thanks - interesting WashPost article/advertisement: "Sponsor Generated Content By United Technologies Published on November 10, 2014" honest at least. And a good video here: PASSIVE HEAD RESTRAINT shown in 2nd Screen Grab: "...The ACES 5 addresses this issue by providing passive head and neck protection (PHNP) that acts like a catcher’s mitt, cushioning and supporting the head and neck to avoid the “slam back” from the high speed wind streams associated with the ejection...."

More on ACES FIVE push by UTC Aerospace Systems waiting in the wings for Martin-Baker to fail with the F-35 seat.

ACES 5 Ejection Seat Offers A Safe Escape09 Nov 2015 Chris Pocock

"...“The ACES 5 is the most stable seat in the world,” Patch claimed. It features faster deployment of the drogue parachute to reduce yaw, and a new GR7000 main recovery parachute that reduces the rate of descent and oscillation. Patch said this was significant, because 43 percent of ejection-related injuries occur during the landing phase.

The seat also features an active pitch stabilization system–the rocket is gyro-stabilized–to compensate for the pitch changes caused by the varying weights of pilots, and by aerodynamic effects.

Restraining fast jet pilots during an ejection has become a major concern in recent years. The introduction of helmet-mounted sights and night vision goggles, with their added mass, has increased the risk of head and neck injuries. The death of an F-16 pilot who ejected from an F-16 on an ACES 2 seat in 2013 was attributed to this cause.

The F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) has temporarily grounded lighter-weight pilots from flying the Lightning II because of the potential for injury in a low-speed ejection. The F-35 is fitted with the US16E ejection seat from rival maker Martin Baker. The British company designed a trio of airbags that inflate in a two-stage process, as a head and neck restraint system. JPO chief Lt. General Chris Bogdan told Congress last month that three “fixes” are being pursued: a lighter helmet, a slight delay in the parachute opening, and additional head support...." [then info on the ACES 5 Seat itself]

...UTAS claims that the CKU-5 catapult rocket provides the softest ride available, with a spinal injury rate of only 1 percent...."